1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

SATA300 not working

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by paulb100, Apr 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    Ive installed my new 7200rpm SATA300 Laptop Drive but the 3Gbps rate doesnt seem to work..

    it works when i remove the jumper but theres no increase in speed or such , infact tray icons seemed a little slower to load...

    can Anyone advise please?

    A) Would the drive still work if my mobo/bios wasnt compatible with 3Gbps , if not then this means the 3Gbps is actually working but the speed increase isnt noticeable

    B) Is there a driver or anything I need to install on Vista to enable SATA300 ?

    THANKs
     
  2. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    Have you checked the specs on your system to see if it supports sataII?

    SataII is not a vista thing. Your sata controller must support sataII.
     
  3. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    No , I cant find out as its an Acer Laptop and theres no information on if it supports SATAII...
    Like I say it works but theres no difference in performance when tested....

    I wanted the 7200rpm drive anyway - theres definatley a boost just from moving from 5400rpm to 7200rpm (about 30% according to HD-Tune)

    But I would like to get SATAII enabled aswell - if not then ok - I would have still had to pay the same £50 for the 7200rpm 120Gb drive regardles of SATA I or II

    Is there a way of finding out if this laptop supports it?
    ive been onto acer website but no help there im afraid

    ACER 5051 thats been upgraded to 2Gb , AMD dual-core , 7200rpm 120Gb HD

    Thanks for helping CRJDRIVER
     
  4. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    You might check what chipset is installed and see if it supports sata2. The only real advantage to sata2 is the advanced features; ie ncq, etc. You will NOT see any speed increase since all drives perform well below their rated speed. For a drive like that, I would guess you see somewhere around 60mps on a benchmark. As you can see it is below even ATA100 rated speed.
     
  5. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    so why do they BRAG about its 3Gbps Datarate if there is NO speed increase at all??? wouldn't it be LYING to say that its twice the speed of SATA150 drives as they do???

    infact why call it 3Gbps comparing it to 1.5Gbps at all?

    I dont understand,
    now i know the ACTUAL throughput is much lower but potentially SATA300 (3Gbps) is supposed to double it again from SATA150 (1.5Gbps) so Im currently getting 60MB/s but if SATA II was enabled it should be around 120MB/s .. see my point?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA#SATA_3.0_Gbit.2Fs
    see this link which explains there IS difference in speed
     
  6. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    Run a benchmark and see for yourself. When sata1 first came out, I benched a sata drive against an ide drive. They were within 1or2mps transfer rate; the ide was very slightly faster. The theoretical speed of sata1 or 2 is faster however the speed is much less than the max or theoretical speed.

    I will look for that benchmark; I had it a while ago.
     
  7. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    Well I found one of the benchmarks. This is a sata1 WD drive against a seagate sata2 drive. Both are connected to a tx4300 raid controller supporting sata2. As you can see the sata1 drive is slightly faster. The only place the sata2 shows an improvement, is in the burst speed from the cache.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    well to be honest I have to admit that the 5400rpm SATA150 was about similar to the 5400rpm IDE drive but this new 7200rpm SATA300 drive is definatley much faster than the previous 5400rpm SATA150 that was in it , Vista loads a tad quicker and its most noticeable when the icons are loading in the tray , when desktop appears theres already 4 icons in the tray and takes about 2-3 seconds for the other 5 to appear

    it is probably running at 1.5Gbps but is definatley faster - HD Tune reports MAX datarate of 60MB/s and the old one is 45MB/s

    but sureley SATA300 is faster than SATA150.. it says so on Wikipedia and other websites
     
  9. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    I do not think so. See the above benchmark :)
    You will see quite an increase in speed with a 7200rpm drive over the 5400rpm. Sata1 or sata2 is another matter. I cannot find the sata V ide benchmark. It was probably lost in one of the many formats/installs.
     
  10. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    Remember; just because someone tells you something, believe it only after you verify it yourself.
     
  11. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    if thats true then whats all the fuss about SATA300 ?? it says so all over that SATA300 is double the speed of SATA150 - are you sure the testing setup was correct? did the motherboard support SATA300 ?

    I will certainly look into it - its obvious that my SATA300 isnt working and that the BIOS is just forcing it to SATA150 anyway as it just an Acer Aspire 5051 Laptop and I dont think laptops support SATA300

    but I still had to spend the same money on the same drive to get the 7200rpm - so I win anyway -just not as much as i hoped for....

    do you think you could help with a RAID Controller issue ive got , i want to upgrade my uncles dhard-drive situation - he has 1 x 80Gb IDE drive , we want to put two SATA300 drives in RAID 0 ARRAY but I dont think his mobo has onboard controller - what do you recommend?

    cheers
     
  12. TheOutcaste

    TheOutcaste

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    9,028
    You need to remember that all the speed ratings, SATA and ATA, are the speed from the bus to the Drive CACHE (Host to Buffer or Interface transfer rate), not the actual platters (Buffer to Disk).
    For any file larger that the drive cache, the actual speed will be much lower, 45-85MB/s with current drives, and will depend on which portion of the platter is being written (outer edge is faster). Spec sheets will show this as a range for sustained transfer rate, or a single number for average sustained transfer rate. I've noticed that those specifications are getting harder to find.

    The sustained transfer rates are constantly increasing with each new generation of drives, so a newer drive is likely to be faster than an older drive. Going to a faster RPM will of course be faster. If the original drive is old enough, a new drive may be twice as fast even with the same spindle RPM.
    For example, Hitachi's 1TB drive is SATA II:
    Interface Transfer Rate - 300 MB/s
    Sustained Transfer Rate - 85-42 MB/s

    http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/DF2EF568E18716F5862572C20067A757/$file/Ultrastar_A7K1000_final_DS.pdf
    You'll also see a Media Transfer rate of 1070 Mbits/s. Converting this to MBytes of data is dependent on the encoding scheme used. Some use two bits on disk for each bit of data, others use 3 bits for each 2 bits of data. Then there is overhead for error correction and sector headers, so 1070Mbits could be 66.8MB or 89.2MB less the overhead.

    I'm not sure what the fastest is now, but the Cheetah 15K.5 drive has a max of 125MB/s, Fujitsu has a 15K drive that hits 147MB/s, almost up to the SATA interface speed.

    Another limit will be the bus speed to the SATA (or IDE) controller. If you use an add-in card, a standard 33MHz PCI slot has a limit of 133MB/s, and that is shared among all PCI devices. So using PCI-x (1.06 - 4.3 GB/s, might be shared w/PCI) or PCI-e (X1 - 250MB/s, X32 - 8GB/s X32 v2.0 - 16.0 GB/s) is a much better option if available.

    Jerry
     
  13. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    As I posted a promise tx4300 controller card was used. Whether the board supports sata2 or not is irrelevant [in this case the board also supported sata2] It is the controller that must support sata2.

    As for raid, I always recommend a real raid card; IMO a much better setup than an onboard type controller. If you must use an onboard type raid controller, the intel one seems to be the best. I use and install either promise or highpoint raid cards. A good quality raid card is going to run $125 or more. The cheap $25 raid cards like this one cause all types of problems.
     
  14. paulb100

    paulb100 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,874
    thanks guys...
    that cheapo one is no good anyway we want SATA300 support if we can
    his mobo is Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L iG31
    it has PCI-E x1 spare will this support the full speeds of Two SATAII drives in RAID 0 ?
    which do you suggest: (and which is cheaper)
    a RAID controller on PCI-E x1 with 2 x 250Gb SATA II drives in RAID 0
    or
    1 x WD Raptor 76Gb drive for Windows + Apps + 1 x 160Gb SATA II for storage
    (baring in mind he is currently on an IDE 80Gb HD thats sharing the 1x IDE port with his DVD-RAM)

    ALSO: Which setup would be faster? ive read LOADS of reviews on eBuyer about the Raptor and whilst most say its fast they also say its noisy and 1 review said it was faster than Raided SATA drives and another said the Raided SATA drives benchmarked as slightly faster so the performance you got from one single Raptoor wasnt worth the noise it made...???? is there any FASTER drives avaiable? TheOutcast mentions 15k drives - I thought they were SCSI only?

    this is for my Uncles Home PC which is used mostly for Internet, AutoCAD and rarely 3D Games (but not much , he only has 1 installed)

    cheers
     
  15. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,867
    I would go for two of the new seagate drives with 32meg of cache and PRT. This would be faster than the single raptor AND have a LOT more storage space.

    In any case you will never reach the the theoretical speed of any drive; raid or non-raid. With the drives I posted above, you might see something like 100~120mps speed [in raid0]
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/702294

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice